tv Transbay Joint Powers Authority 21116 SFGTV February 12, 2016 1:00pm-3:31pm PST
funds will hopefully enable many units to come up to code and make housing much more help available for tenants were living and unauthorized or two for unauthorized units in the speaker get the rest i will submit the thick thank you. residence breed >> good afternoon close to ely evening card. today i'm introducing a resolution in support of the impact custodian workers at ucsf who were fired after peacefully organizing their working condition it between 2011 and 2014, ucsf spent nearly $3 million on contact and custodian services from impact groups many of the workers played by ucsf medical center were chinese immigrants. they work full-time and did the same job as directly employed
us ef faction of ucsf paid impact as much as $29 per hour but the contract paid his employees only $18 an hour. in 2013, the pay was cut to $10.74 per hour. that is barely above our minimum wage of $10 our minimum wage of $10.55 that the degree. workers responded by working with the uc servers were. union afscme local 3299 to begin organizing for better treatment. they doubled the hourly pay and benefits such as health and pension, guaranteed wage increases, and paid time off. in march of 2015 ucsf did not renew its contract with impact group resulting in many of these workers losing their jobs. then the university then began working with another contractor.. the dispute
between ucsf and local 3299 has prompted an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the general counsel of the public employee relations board. in response to that complaint, ucsf claimed it cannot hire the impact workers because they do not speak english sufficiently, even though they had already works for you see for many many years. these workers exercise rights guaranteed by the higher education employment employer -employee relations. they should not face retaliation for trying to improve their working conditions. more important, it concerns me as a president of the board of supervisors that the second largest employer in the city and county of the san francisco refuses to hire qualified workers aced on the language they speak. san
francisco is a diverse city as an inclusive city. implement his commission has no place here. it fundamentally differs from our core values and my resolution urges ucsf chancellor dr. sam haygood and medical center ceo, mark polaris, to work with local 3299 to rehire these former impact custodian's as full-time ucsf employees with the union, with union representation. i want to thank connie thorne from sf proud and paul smith wino is here today with some of the individuals impacted by this chain of events. i want to thank you for your work on behalf of the impact workers may also want to thank my cosponsors for supporting me on this resolution, supervisor kim, thank you very much for cosponsoring this with me along with supervisor peskin, cohen,
and wiener. colleagues, this resolution will be before us at the meeting of february 23 and look forward to your supports. the other item, which is not an item, today is mardi gras. if that tuesday. we celebrate and san francisco one of the best districts in san francisco, district 5 in the fillmore. so invite each and every one of you to join us on the fillmore at some amazing restaurants between gary and eddy streets of fillmore. 1300 on fillmore. sheba lounge. fat angel. the progress. we have some incredible restaurants, but also will be celebrating outside along fillmore and o'farrell at the fillmore plaza and performing i will be, fillmore slim. please join us. it'll be great celebration. we look for to seeing you all there tonight and the rest i submit.
>> thank you. supervisor campos >> you can add me as a cosponsor of your resolution around ucsf and i want to make sure i'm on record supporting the ask me 3 to 99 employees. i think it said we find ourselves where we are hopefully ucsf will do the right thing by these workers. the first item is a resolution that a major to sing along with pres. breed and supervisor norman yee, think the other supervisors mar, avalos peskin and kim. this resolution provides a framework for a resolution, hopefully a settlement of the issues raised around the tech show programs. in contrary to the parade of
horrible's layout by some folks, the point of this resolution is actually to allow the program to continue. to allow it to continue and the idea is through this resolution we are asking the minnesota transportation agency to codify some of the key concepts that are embedded in the resolution following discussions from folks with the various parties that are involved. even though were not at a point where a resolution is finalized i'm cautiously optimistic we will get to this point. but the gist of this resolution is one that will have a program that continues for one year with a review of six months that we would the number of stops at the present number which is 125 . that we would ask the municipal transportation agency
in collaboration with the san francisco county authority, which is essentially made up of members of this board, to explore different options for the system. the explanation doesn't mean that we in fact will do any of this, but it simply means due consideration of a hub system or other potentially more efficient model. we also are asking, or actually confirming, that we have pursued the maximum recovery of cost that's permitted under the law. we also are asking for additional funds necessary to have proper enforcement going forward,, that we restrict large vehicles from small neighborhood streets. we are also calling for cleaner vehicle emissions standards. we want a guarantee of labor-peace which is an important consideration i know for all my colleagues. we want
better monitoring of air quality in the event there are significant increase in individual stocks and that we commissioned a study on the possible impacts that commuter shuttles have along with other factors on the grid displacement. we believe that san francisco has made it clear they want this program to continue but they also made it clear they want the companies to pay their fair share my and they also want to make sure there were concerns in the interest of neighborhoods are taken into account. lastly, that there is at least a thorough analysis and study of the issue of displacement which is what we are asking to do.
so, i'm cautiously optimistic and again i want to thank pres. breed. i would think supervisor >> music and their respective staff with the parties, the appellants, the various companies that the amendment involves the industry and i'm cautiously optimistic we will get to a resolution that works for the entire city. i also want to note and thank supervisor kim and her staff because they also have quite a bit of role and we would not be here without her leadership. the second item, and want to fit my cosponsors. supervisor avalos, kim, yee, peskin mar, is consistent with commerce issues have last week around a contract introduction of a motion tracking the budget and legislative analyst perform conducted performance audit of the city's real estate division. i believe that something that could be very
helpful and beneficial as we move forward. the rest i submit >> thank you. supervisor cohen . supervisor farrell >> collies, i have one item today. a new technologies businesses specially. san francisco the services they offer change our economic basket in san francisco and across the country we've on-demand services and platforms like lift, other innovative businesses alone are workers especially the latest of more flexible work hours allowing them to work for multiple platforms and services as well. the rise of these platforms and services has contributed to an increased amount of people now working jobs as independent contractors, freelancers, whether employee classifications across the country as well as right here in san francisco. if you read some of the broader economic
trends that continue to show more and more people are choosing to be self-employed or work for multiple platforms and services the flexibility and other benefits those types of jobs can offer. we all know that the traditional path that existed for generations in this country and elsewhere working for one job for 30+ years and then retiring is simply not reality anymore. just as the types of workers are choosing to get more flexible work options, the new economy and workforce does raise questions on the type of benefits responsibilities workers and company should expect. the rise of this economy and workforce we have discussions about whether 20th-century work standards definitions work in a 21st century economy. that's why today i'm introducing a hearing request and calling on her city's chief economist to produce a first of its kind report on the data economy inherent san francisco. specifically, masking a chief economist to produce a report that contains the form. the size and scope of this gig
economy and workforce here in san francisco, how much these workers are earning inner-city, the different type of employee classifications gig workers may fall under, what worker benefits may or may not be available to these individuals, and anything else subsequent about this city the chief economist deems necessary to report on. was this port is pleaded with for some in our city's history we had detailed information of our workforce within san francisco city limits. i believe i called us i firmly believe all workers regardless of employee classification deserve access to traditional worker benefits just like other employees they deserve some form of a safety net that chance there hurt on the job, get sick or family issues to attend to. look forward to the release of this report the discussions ahead of this extremely important policy space at the rest i submit >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> have two items today. the
first is a request for hearing and the second is an in memoriam. before that i do want to express my cosponsorship of two of the ordinance and resolution this before to get one of the supplemental appropriation to support our small businesses and three vendors displaced in super bowl l and second for the resolution urging ucsf also in the district i represent along with supervisor breed to rectify the serious breaches of workers rights by hiring the fired impact orders as full-time employees. i'm calling for a hearing today before the idea of having the city and county of san francisco establish one unified database data visualization program to talk advantages from every department and also about uavs for city programs. just last week, and often noted statistic
that has been reported in the press san francisco chronicle reported that the city spends at least $240 million on homeless population but cannot track the results. we know that eight city department oversee at least for hundred contracts to 76 private organizations to do with an address very serious issue inner-city, homelessness. san francisco is the world's capital technology yet we do not yet have a basic toolkit tracking all of our spending the results of our programs. or city government can't track the efficacy of all of our spending in one place. even the smallest businesses in san francisco basic database to monitor expenditures and return on investment. yet, we've not done the same. from the bakery on the corner to the largest corporation, what is called customer relationship are used to make programs in business is more effective. san francisco is home to salesforce one of
the largest providers in the world. there are bright spots such as our primary efforts but the data is not yet fully centralized it isn't always shared and most of all, it isn't always acted on to make your services more effective. in particularly concerned that the steps of inefficiencies plague our efforts to combat homelessness bill we need to make sure were using every dollar effectively to help homeless residents get off the street and get back on their feet. i know we have many programs analyzed do incredible work in the city and that in fact her problem would be far worse and far larger if not for these incredible services at both cities and nonprofit organizations provide like supportive housing. but we should know how much more dollars are being spent on housing folks, how well it's working, and make sure were doing more of what works and less of what is not working. some proposing office of civic innovation energy technology officer johnny together to
create a single system to track how all of our money is spent and whether it's producing the results with the goal of making this program tracks every dollar, every program. the cities made bold promises before. we've also made real progress on upgrading our technology. but we need to do more. we have a homelessness crisis affordability crisis and eviction crisis is further exacerbating what was seen in a homelessness issue here did it we need to make sure we can account for the dollars have been spent. i hope that this hearing we can bring together the city technology committee and department head to view what each of the department is doing and what would you do to unify these programs. i think that it's important to have this dovetail with the mayor's
office work on centralizing many of the services in a department of homelessness that's currently in discussion today is also the subject of another hearing in cosponsoring with supervisor melia cohen. i do i think supervisor avalos and campos for joining in and so finally i want to submit and anymore am. it's with a heavy heart i share the news of the surpassing of the leader of-he was struck by a car last week in san francisco died over the weekend. for those who do not know, natural work of employers of management house cleaners and home attendance, families and allies were grounded in the conviction that dignified and respectful working conditions benefit worker and employer alike. according to lindsay-the bay area organizer for hand-in-hand who knew very well and works closely with her passing domestic bill of rights sure these words with us today. she brought light humor and honesty to hand in hand. she had a contagious laugh and
never afraid to exactly what she thought. she was also a powerful advocate an ally to the domestic worker movement giving critical testimony to support the passage of ab- california domestic bill of rights. there's always those for social justice who go above and beyond and we all know every effort there are always those who volunteer when no one else will. who do the work that no one else wants to do. that was her. we will all miss her and her positive energy. her willingness to try new things and do things to support hand-in-hand and domestic workers movement. remember, when she spoke at the rally in sacramento, was a passage unaligned along with many of her other work in uniting workers. there will be eight memorial service in stockton this week and we are still waiting the details i will pass that along to the public as soon as we learn them. but i do ask that we adjourn our board
meeting in her memory and also the remembrance of how important vision zero his as a policy could we can have lives taken away by these collisions that take place on our streets and take away members of our community suddenly and quickly and often those who contribute so much to our lives and our community and the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisors do not >> cement >> better president campos ssp >> my project. just a quick point. i do also joined in the in memoriam for the tragic death of this amazing woman. i want to note i'm introducing a hearing request to follow up on a hearing that supervisors wiener and yee on the issue of car break-ins in san francisco
and calling for a follow-up hearing to be held in public safety delivered services committee so that we can have a better understanding of the various strategies that the police department the attorney's office, and others following to address this abbott epidemic threats i submit >> better president that concludes the introduction of new business. thank you. can you please read public comment >> at this time the public may now address the board in its entirety for up to 2 min. on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. to include items on the adoption without reference to committee calendar. public comment will not be allowed when an item is previously been subject to public comment a board committee. pursuant to the boards will, direct their remarks to the board as a whole and not to individual supervisors and not to the audience. speakers using translation assistance will be
allowed twice the amount of time to testify to be like to display a document on the overhead projector the state got to sf gtb remove the document when you would like to screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. >> thank you. first speaker emma please. >> >> i have in my hand of the san francisco chronicle today. including our madam clerk, you have one.[foreign-language]
ladies and gentlemen i have a few issues today to discuss with you number one, happy new chinese here for our chinese residents. number two, congratulations to denver and god bless america and san francisco for the super bowl. number two, [inaudible] he discriminated against many of us anything his money can take him to the white house. the other one, his mama or his mommy thinks she has the keys to the white house. we are sick and tired of bush and his family. enough is enough. i
want to tell to both of you [inaudible]. ladies and gentlemen, the way you have a giddy today and you can see by your eyes [inaudible] on the red carpet. i never saw that in any other country. even our supervisor, he does not come with a red carpet. he is here neared. ladies and gentlemen, our country is different than the world. 5 million egyptians bowing for mr. mubarak. 5 million egyptians. that means
250,000 $250,000 every day. in my country and my family and the other families, they are struggling to live. i would like to tell you thank you to america. thank you to san francisco. i'm here 30 years. i'm trying to give my voice to every one of you to wake up and to help us [inaudible] was happening to my times. enough is enough. it's been 44 years i have not seen my country. i've not seen my family. thank you. did god bless all the >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> [inaudible].
white people. i hope they appreciate the burden. congratulations to them. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thousands of senior citizens reside at the san francisco units for this coming year of 2016, the fourth time in the last four decades, three of those within the last five years the social security administration will not issue a cost-of-living increase to senior citizens who depend on social security. in addition, it's predicted there will also be no increases in 2017 or 2018. social security administration's rationale is that the consumer price index has fallen due to the lowering of gasoline prices. this is a bitter irony for many seniors
get a large percentage of whom don't drive and see everything from food pharmaceuticals and other necessities climbing regardless of the following gas prices. many private passions also coordinate their increase with the social security ministration skoda so many other seniors are impacted as well to my request of the supervisors and i called a few of you of your staffers, is that the board grace of legislation any retired senior citizen collecting social security or private pension type ii: and living in a rent controlled units from having to pay any increase in years where no cola increase is issued by the social security administration. seniors on fixed income are living on the edge just 1-2% increase in rent conoco developing increasing cola can mean the difference
between food on the table were doctors visit or necessary prescription drug purchase. with the loss of their living units. this is a timely request and hopefully the board supervisors walked immediately and set legislation to impact seniors retroactively to january 1 of this year. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm a san francisco taxidriver. i do not taxidriver for about four years. now i drive for de soto it basically i'm here to talk about what you guys called the economy and like uber and left have the software that they must get some being regulated by now because his regular vet of the state. basically, all insane is like this. us taxidrivers had a career and now these companies to that career and they made people who work in that industry
need to pay less. so it's no longer agree. it's like a part-time job for people with no future. you drive a cab you can become a medallion ordered another way to survive. you have a career. you've done something new, something. now with these gigs economy, it's anybody who wants to work for a few hours. do they really care about the job was a just a quick buck? taxidrivers take the time to be educated beside our days talked about the city and enjoying. i just feel like because these companies have money and the sponsored by people like google, the kind of looked at as it's good. really it's destroying the people i worked on for decades. as far as solutions, i don't know well i can tell you it's kind of like it's pretty bad already
late taxidrivers i know some live in their cars when these people take care of a family and save for college. this income these big companies with billions of dollars they hire celebrities to market and advertise these companies like your cool and hip really is just taking the money and giving it to merrill lynch big investors >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is vickie graves. i'm episcopal deacon and i don't live in the city i live in vallejo. i could not afford the city. i felt a need to truck in here this afternoon, this evening, because i work here with the san francisco night ministry. might be used to be folk college. just a
couple blocks down here at leavenworth mcallister, we have a sunday eucharist service and reserve lunch to our homeless congregation regulars. we do the same at 16th and mission, and i know there has been a lot said in the past, a few weeks around super bowl. there are no sweeps going on but let me tell you, two sundays ago, the community bicycle police came by and intruded on our service ticketing the, two other ministers, and handcuffing and ticketing one of our congregants who is sitting on the grass, private property. the swedes have been going on. this last sunday un plaza, down the
block, was swept clean.. the people on our little park area removed from one side to the other. as a federal policeman on one side and the city policeman on the other side in the shooting people back and forth. we need to stop making homelessness a client. we need to find people housing not just shelters. affordable housing. finally, we need-and i'm glad to hear what i heard today, we need to- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am john-this is about the super bowl. haven't heard enough about it yet?. i hope none of
the players got had concussions in this year's super bowl. many players in the game are descendents of former american slaves. in the past, gladiators also were slaves who fought for the amusement of the well-to-do in the stands. we don't fight to the death, but we are willing to accept had concussions that might affect a players for the rest of their lives. all lies matter. thank you for listening. >>thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is michael-on the street artist in justin herman plaza and i like to address the supervisors today about both what happened to us and how we can get compensated. first of
all, 70 artists that were not displaced is 130 artists that were displaced and we seven are supplied for the 10 spots available. super bowl city would not existed of the cigars were kicked out of the businesses. although sales revenue you're talking about funding all these different programs and projects would not exist if the street artists were not kicked out of their spots. to make it more heinous, we weren't offered any condensation for the loss of our business and we were not offered any like or similar alternative spots to set up in. we have not been offered any reduction in reimbursement to the piece we paid to be in the spot. as supervisor peskin suggested, not suggested that said, we pay a license fee. that license fee may not guarantee us a specific location, but it does guarantee
us that we have the opportunity to go out and sell our businesses. so when you consider pain considering the money coming in for the super bowl city and for the revenues generated by the nfl, the street artists should be at the top of the list for reimbursement because all of us lost our businesses for 22 days. in my instance, had i been able to set up in super bowl city, and be considered an part of that that could be anywhere from three-$6000 of lost revenues. that's a considerable amount of money for me and for the small businesses. i hear everyone talk about the homeless. we actually support homeless by hiring them. many of our artists are senior citizens who need the money to pay the rent and supplement their food. thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> on george baker and appreciate your time. not a great public speaker but i appreciate what i heard today. i heard a lot of great things
that you're actually addressing the homeless situation and looking for solutions. i applaud you for doing that. it's a lot of work out there. i know you're looking at multiple angles how to tackle the problems. in my experiences of being homelessness is that you have to look at the big picture and come up with permanent solutions >> please speak directly into the microphone >> i apologize. i look at the -i was in technology for a long time. i know there's a pretty large amount of money it's not always money that solves issues but at the end of the day, i look at the 1700 department expense code for i guess it's for housing and employment and i don't know if it's going to be
1/1000 of 1% saw necessarily tackling long-term strategic goals of housing and homelessness. it's all interconnected. but it be and of the day, i think you could look at maybe not building or refurbishing homeless centers. you may want to look at building new shelters to house additional people. 4000 people. or 1500 people. with a permanent shelter would be a transition time in and out. it could be a lot more cost effective. from a real estate perspective, you're looking at apartment buildings at 2 million. with that, alternate over to the experts but i want to let you know it's a big issue that's been around for a long time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening board of supervisors. my name is john
timmons. i'm one of the displaced street artist. right now i'm looking at bills i cannot afford to cover. including a san francisco waterville. what do i do?? to i write to the board and say i'm a san francisco crs that got displaced? to set it straight abandon deposit for 15 years. prior to that i been a homeless person since 1984. the street artist program is what made me no longer homeless. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is suzanne markel fox. the vice chairman of the neighborhood association. we stand with the polk district merchants association and our support of the many small businesses that are the personality of our neighborhood. very character of polk street is by plans to
install formula retail about the ncd in times of the essence. form the retail is an important part of our national economy, but as unintended consequences and cited in [inaudible] when applied to areas and polk street with big ops projects may check more business but at the expense of small business. unable to compete on price and margin, and under constant pressure on rents, small businesses cannot be sustained. the result is a loss of these neighbors of commerce and in the color full nature of the neighborhood changes to a sterile monochrome, no different from strip malls we find across america. we support stronger formula retail controls in the polk ncd to protect our unique neighborhood identity and well-established local merchants like swan oyster depot in business for 100 years. the jug shop, 50 years.
and the dual market, 30 years. these businesses are part of our local family and a powerful draws for tourist dollars and taxes. from the retail work very can activate preserve it but small business health in hayes valley and north beach. along polk street commercial rent are through the roof emerges are under the additional pressure of polk street redesign and the vrc we stand to lose many of our neighborhood businesses to form the retail we do not act now. stronger formula retail control combined with smart city planning will preserve the vibrant commercial corridor that protects good character and also welcomes smart mixed-use housing development without displacing one single residence or business. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good even get my name is joseph foreman on the order of natural market. i been in business for 32 years now. serving in the community i'm
also here discussed the formula box store proposals to limit them in our commercial districts specifically the polk street area. what makes san francisco such a unique place to live is because we have these small shopping communities. they designed for walking businesses and have always been housed by small individuals and family businesses. what is being proposed at the 365 location jock by the lombardi sports center will have a major impact on polk small businesses, especially those with food in their format. i have watched several businesses over the years as a native san francisco disappear in our neighborhood communities because each time big stores open up it puts pressure on the smaller stores to continue to survive. we don't just one store selling cigarettes and beer and wine. we want them to sell the goods
the committees are looking for. so, i'm here to support what we can doto protect the community. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here to share some statistics about homeless in. there's a lot of misinformation out there so i want to clear up a few things. one is there's over 7000 was people on any one night in san francisco. there's only one shelter bed for every 5.5 homeless people.. the majority of homeless people in san francisco were san franciscans before they were homeless. studies have shown that municipalities have saved
money, housing homeless people it is cheaper to house someone there to keep them homeless. san francisco is more anti-homeless laws than any other city in california, a whopping 22 was used against homeless people and i think that's discussing. last year, 11,000 citations were given to homeless people for resting were sitting, and when they can pay their find that leads to warrants, loss of access to housing, destroyed credit and more. also, there are 3300 homeless children in san francisco, 61% of homeless adults have a disability. 30% are lgbt q and the majority are people of color. something to think about in our personal note i happen to be a transgender man and when people ask me with a transgender committee and san francisco what committed i know people who are afraid to leave their house. i have a friend who's
doesn't feel safe in the shelter and a veteran who friend who took his own life evidence pointed heartstrings but it's a true story. it's affecting human beings >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ray is all business on polk street. 11 years i hope i can be a legacy as well, 30 years going. i just want to say thank you to proviso peskin. i support your efforts for controls on form in the retail and thanks for keeping the old-school values of san francisco a lot. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> president of the board, supervisors, and supervisor peskin my name is linda patterson. a been a street artist since 1980. 27 soft ominous trends in the economy just as i'd by then i've been
sewing my blood prince were improving and 29 when the economy tanked. having to leave my one-bedroom apartment [inaudible] i came back to the city where i still live in a sro and north between most all my social security benefits this we take an early phase the rent on my room. in 2012 my feelings for the tech industry eased as sales after purchasing a cell phone is finding up with square socket process critical errors. that old phone had to be replaced in january so i could take card readers. this is a chip reader. this was an unexpected expense. due to the fact i lost space [inaudible] i generally feel on saturdays in january and february when sales are slow in justin herman plaza
is our only venue for foot truck victory about my sales potentially very some nothing to over $400 on any given day. in the past film crews have reimbursed us at the rate of $200 per day for loss of selling spaces. for myself i would consider $600 of their reimbursement at this time of year for the three saturdays and selling opportunities lost at justin herman plaza lost to the super bowl city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is claire kate and i been a street artist program since the 70s. i did take time for a tech job but i've been on and off for all my adult life. i cherish it. i feel that's an incredible opportunity to be there. but the city allows us to be in the
best spot one of the best spots. to miss 22, plus, we don't know when we are going back, days, it's a struggle now and to catch up it would be great if we got compensated and i know a lot of my friends and colleagues are really on the edge and this could make the difference. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervise my name is scott. i'm in a street artist since 1974. so over 40 years is pretty much a career. at one time i was a manager of an arts and crafts market at justin herman plaza and we also often entertain different events we share the pauses with us. this event of course was much larger and pretty incredible for a lot of people who enjoyed it. but for street artist, we were told in november that we need to be
compensated will be given spaces near the super bowl city. unfortunately, the commission was not able to ingratiate any spaces for us. so we were put out for these 22 days. by the christmas season was pretty wet as you know. so a lot of the street artists looking forward to this big event but in january looking forward to this big event but in january 4 we were told of course, it was going to be any compensation and we would be placed on the outside of the event we tend a lot of cigars had to scramble. this week of course is valentine's week and were waiting for the super bowl structure to come down. is a very important week for street artists to make money and sales especially because the weather has been nice. not only did this regards have to put up with the events being placed in the first place, and during the event, but a loss this week as well.
many people really did enjoy that events. sure was pretty awesome super bowl city they put up. unfortunately, the artists who've been there for years were not invited to the banquet. so i appreciate supervisor kim and peskin for sponsoring putting this resolution 12 compensate for some of the loss that street art is in part. the city of san francisco often writes about how they take care of their art community. so this opportunity to step up and take care of us as well. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisor. my name is mike my photographer. first off i'd like to thank supervisor peskin and supervisor kim for looking into this. what i like to show you is here, this is when the street artists first started at justin herman plaza. back then it was called the embarcadero plaza. it was a dump. nobody wanted to
be there. the supervisors actually all one of the street artists out of the union sc to want them out o fisherman's wharf. they want them in this area that had embarcadero. the hyatt was not even built than i'm sorry. the embarcadero freeway. they want us in a spot where we would not make any money. at that time, the street artists started their they been there ever since. when mayor alioto heard we were down there the street artists were down there, he was very happy with it and he put out a press release that stated. chinn refers 1972 san francisco chronicle mayor hollywood is quoted effective immediately he said this regards will a full-time use of the embarcadero ctr., plaza. like i said we been there ever since
and is a little confusion about the term street art and graffiti artists have co-opted the term. street artists by their nature, their own work and if we want, decision for $200 per day or two back that sales. that's gross sales. that's not net income get you to take out the materials, the cost to sales taxes security test we have to pay both sides. the display the computers the cell phones the credit card processing. etc. we got no medical care we get no dental bill paid holidays no vacation the pension overtime no minimum wage. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is-john's good a lot of people get-the
get my name is on the chairman of the local association am proud to stand with local poke merchants and boat district merchant association to support stronger form of the retail controls on polk street. sometimes it takes a series of dramatic events to bring the community together to ask for change. in our case, the last year and a half we've been about a with big-box retailers like target and whole foods were trying to swap away one of only half a dozen subsites and district 3 to build much-needed housing in the greatest housing crisis in modern memory. the lombardi site will build really 62 units of housing evictions are at all-time high in our neighborhood. alice, people want to move to our neighborhood. that's a good thing. we have to build housing first. we also want to protect
our local businesses could we need to stand firm and say that district 3 the historic district, the polk street is a storage area and needs to be protected. when big-box chains try to stop reasonable common sense housing development that all you can support, the community needs to take a stand. we have done that and were appreciative of supervisor peskin inducing legislation to protect local independent business. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i've only gone through the process of contacting the occ and san francisco police commission and the supervisor of the bayview district could however, the e-mail didn't go through a couple times i tempted to put it through. i contacted three of the different assistance to that supervisor and insisted i
put him into an e-mail. however i prefer to speak to people face-to-face. it's part of my college. so i feel like the internet is leaving people behind. basically, where the incidence was i was mugged by the police freight traffic incident. i pulled over and was willing to take a ticket. however they put their hands on me baby sweet violated me. it's been over a year and still waiting for a response. my final resort is to come here. i came your couple other times now and the second time was people of ethnic city within the bayview neighborhood attempted to mug me and so i called the police took them 20 min. or so. i was thankful they can. however, they didn't seem they seem disinterested in what they gave me some kind of a claim tidbit they didn't write any number and asked if i want to press charges. i said i don't know what that means. so, i got an appointment with capt.
solomon of the bayview department and he said he would get back to me and never did. since then he was promoted to command. i was able to track him down there did not directly . i left a met melts. he did not get back to me so time goes by. i tried not being irate person and tried to be within the system but time goes by and you get lost in this and i like to be a bk person not a homosexual. i'm from here. but i don't know. the older i get the less i tend to believe >> next speaker, please. >> tom mcgillis but i'm scared it was a 10-1 vote.. community involvement was being questioned
. supervisor lee was, questioning it. i was behind him. as never ever an excuse to reduce community involvement. community involvement always says i'm the it puppet that vote was changed to 11-0 good i hope there's no change to community involvement. three involvement as always highly a ball because they react to a plan that developers have designed, have lawyers, have profits estimates and they want to get going on it. last week mr. marriott was maybe that'll be the moment when this community starts coming together as a whole. super bowl $v million should never been to the nfl should pay their host cities five in the dollars to host the event. san francisco, in this time in my lifetime has
been given a number of different gifts. two of which are happening right this week. the chinese involvement in our society is a portal. san francisco is a portal for which we become grateful for the diversity it also valentine's day. beef and has a nice little tradition. keep a little candle in your hearts. maybe let it grow. remember to smile. yet our society now is what we are going through, here's a book. can we see it on the screen? the sixth extinction. we need a change of values. new directions. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors. as of 6 pm. i'm peter warfield
executive director of library users association. my subject today is san francisco public libraries knew the proposed set of fees and in particular when they're not discussing publicly. that is san francisco public libraries city (luis-herrera has proposed a revision to the library fees and includes a brand-new fee for lost or damaged to a laptop computer. the amount is $1000. for those who may not be paying attention, $1000. the newly proposed fees also include $500 for a lost or damaged tablet and finally, vicki dollars for lost or damaged to unspecified
peripherals and accessories. we wonder whether that means such things as a five dollar word 10 dollar thumb dr.? a users association has a considerable excess at the last lottery commission last thursday. that is, we told a library commission that evidently did not know the amount of that new fee, those new fees, but we told him what that was. so, for the first time in living memory, there was a motion and those second. so, that set a fees for the moment has not passed. for the moment, but not be on its way to you but we expected to be coming. we ask you to pay close attention and also, as we said last time two weeks ago, fees consider a no
fine system. >> next speaker, please. >> the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet. moses like moses. the prophet isaiah had said that the prophet would be led as a lamb to the slaughter. as a sheep before-so he opened not his mouth. the prophet david had said that the prophet like moses would have his feet and hands pierced and that they would part his gun and cast lots for his best good prophet daniel had said the prophet like moses would be killed in the 47th year from the command
to restore and rebuild jerusalem. we don't even know is can ago in 487 seconds. we could all be dead. he echoed what gabriel said. going forth of the commandments under the messiah, the prince shall be seven weeks. that was his baptism. he was anointed. which transmit to the sabbath year and into the spring of 29. then he further stated he missed up 77 which had to be the fourth year of the 47 messiah will be cut off but not from himself. would cause the sacrifice. every single lamb they killed in the morning and in the evening represented the lamb of
god was to take away the sin of the world. jesus said the biggest sin is not to believe in me. think about that. what an audacious statement will be for anybody except him to make. i was stopped my sermon a couple weeks ago >> thank you. any other members of the public would like to speak at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed batticaloa, please read the without reference to committee arms >> item 36 being considered for adoption without many reference. ma and next this item severed and have it considered >> please call the roll >> on item 36, supervisor peskin aye, tang aye, wiener aye, yee aye, avalos aye, breed aye campos aye, cohen aye,
farrell aye, kim aye, mar god. there are other than scott >> the resolution adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>", please read the in memoriam >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals on behalf of supervisor kim and supervisor campos the late ms. tufano >> colleagues, happy mardi gras happy chinese new year and happy black history month. we will see you february 23. this meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>
>> good morning everybody welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance question meeting for wednesday february, 10, 2016. i want to thank jennifer low and charles for covering this meeting. do we have any announcements? >> please silence all cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the february 24th board of supervisors agenda. >> item number one resolution
authorizing the recreation and park department accept grant in the amount of approximately $27 million from the state of california department of housing and community development to fund housing related park projects. >> thank you very much. >> good morning committee members. my name is tony. i'm the grant manager for the recreation park capital and improvement division. the item before you is legislation to authorize recreation and park to retroactively accept and extend a grand in the amount of approximately $2.6 million from the california department of housing and community development department. the legislation also authorizes general manager of the recreation and park department to reallocate grant funds as needed to maximize city recovery for this grant program. the program is a formula grant that is based on the number of
low income housing units and bedrooms that are permitted for construction for the calendar year 2014. the program provides funds for the acquisition and development of parks and community centers in communities that have infield development. the program provides bonus dollars if those park and community projects are located disadvantaged and park efficient communities. city staff and capital improvement division, the mayor's office of housing and the planning department, collaborated on a grant application that resulted in a $2.6 million award. the selective park projects that would meet the bonus cry tore why to ensure we got the maximum grant award. we were notified in june of the award, we're now ready to move
forward with 11 projects. little background in the past we received two of these grants. in both occasions, we did have to reallocate funds to other approves projects to extend the full grant amount. that's why we requesting that the general manager have the authority to grant funds. are there any questions. >> supervisor kim. >> can you go over the 11 projects that are listed in the resolutions and what are you doing for them and how you decide to select them based on the criteria? >> for the recreational and parks project, which are the first five projects, the 17th and folsom park, we selected that project because it had a funding gap. that will close the funding gap to allow to construct that project. the balboa pool is one of our 2012 bond programs which had a funding gap and we are -- we've
been allocating to basically close funding gaps for recreational park facilities that were funded through 2012 or the 2008 park bond. the geneva community garden is a project that has no bond funding. it is fully funded. the two phases of this project from this funding source alone. hilltop park is another project that received $5 million grant from the state department of parks and recreation. that project had a shortfall. >> where is hilltop park? >> it's located in the bay view hunters point neighborhood. as we go through the next set of projects, would be glide foundation, chinese, affirmative action center, the mission neighborhood center, the
bartowla family connection. those projects were elect selected by the mayor's office of housing. they did a request for proposal and had a list of projects they wanted to fund. they're using these grant funds to help supplement their funding. the final project is central market living innovation zone. that particular project is highly favored by the housing, the -- sorry, the housing parks program people. they have a collaboration with the exploretorium. if you have further questions about why they selected in project. but that project is located on market street in one of the lower income census blocks. >> do you know which part of market street?
>> i'll let him speak to that. >> thanks so much for having me. i'm from the planning department. the first will be in un plaza. we received funding for the same grant program last year. within two years funding, the second year is going to supplement it. it will be done by the exploretorium. it's going to be installed in april, mid april. the second one is a collaboration between central library and an organization called youth art exchange. which is going to be built on the folsom street access. it's going to be design built project -- design and built by high school students. it's to try to bring some focus
on the civic center plaza. we know these are challenges to bring healthy activities. >> my last question, i only ask this because i know we've been talking a bit about equity metrics with potential new revenue. when you said that these projects met the program in disadvantage community, can you explain that further? it seems these project would fit under the criteria just based on what i know about the neighborhood. i want to understand how rec and park determine what the criteria and disadvantage is and can you explain that to me and how these projects met those criterias? >> the disadvantage community criteria by the federal census data, each project have to be located in census block or
bordering a census block that has 50% of the residents living below the federal poverty line. they actually have very specific -- in terms of park efficient, the grant program requires that we use the california state department park and recreation community fact finder report. what the report does, you locate -- you place a pin on the park and it captures a half a mile radius around the park. if there are less than three acres per one thousand resident, that is considered a park efficient community. >> great, thank you so much for pointing that. >> colleagues be, any further questions. we'll move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item
one. >> chair make a motion to extend the resolution with a recommendation to the full board. >> we have a motion by supervisor tang. call item two. >> resolution authorizing the acquisition of real properties on the san francisco unified school district located at 1101 connecticut street for the price of $1.8 million. >> okay. thank you very much. >> good morning supervisors tang and kim. legislative aide. as you all know district ten includes four of the five largest public heights. it has been a keep priority for supervisor cohen. we've seen the transformation in public housing has made in the lives of residents and the entire communities. we are already starting to see this at the new integrated units
where we are going to be able to transform that development into a new mixed income community with absolutely no displacement. a commitment we have made to residents. what you have before you today is a critical first step in the large development for the rebuilt of the site. the acquisition of 1101 connecticut will allow the construction of a first building of the sites without requiring relocation of placement and enable them to stay in their neighborhood during construction. this guiding principle is essential in helping preserve the front community that currently exist and is important for the redevelopment. the mayor housing -- i hope to ask for your support for this item today. >> thank you very much.
>> good morning supervisors. director of mayor housing. this is the last piece of the transaction that was before the board a couple of years ago when the city was able to negotiate a basically trade and a purchase between the school district and the city. 1950 mission, which is the current location for the navigation center, 1101 connecticut, both surplus school district properties. were exchange for central freeway parcel e. an additional funds to sort of true up the values between those two projects. we weren't able to come before the board at the time, we actually purchased 1950 because that parcel was going through the environmental review process
which just completed. we had to enter into an option agreement. but this is the culmination of that particular transfer which i think is a win-win for both the school district and the city. it includes the project manager rebuild. we'll talk about the specific transaction. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> hi i'm a project manager at the mayor's office of housing. i'm here today to request authorization to acquire the property located at 1101 connecticut street for future use as affordable howing in connection with the hope sf project. the 1101 connecticut parcel is a drive thousand square foot lot currently owned by the san francisco unified school district. most agreement is to purchase the site for $1.8 million which see expires in march of 2016.
11101 connecticut is included in the master plan which received planning commission approval in december of 2015. 1101 connecticut is located at the corner of 25th street in connecticut. it is a desirable site for acquisition due to adjacent to annex. hope sf is the mayor signature and anti-poverty initiative. it seeks to transform san francisco's most critically distressed public housing into new mixed income community. annex is three acres located on the south side of health. the new community will include 606 replacement affordable housing units and approximately 200 new affordable housing units. up to 900 housing units for
maximum density of 1700 units. bridge housing was selected as the master developer in 2008. acquisition of 1101 connecticut is a critical first step in implementation of hope sf. one of the primary goals is to achieve revitalization of housing with minimal displacement to residents. the project will completed in multiple phases. 1101 connecticut will be the first phase of construction and will require no relocation. because the parcels is currently vacant. it will be combined with an adjacent five thousand square foot baskball court. the resulting 30,000 square foot parcel, known as block x, will be knowned by mostly b for 99 years. for families on the site. this building will serve as new housing for aren'ts in the first
phase of relocation of the master plan development. thank you, that concludes my presentation. i am here for questions and claudia is here from the department of real estate as well. >> thank you very much. supervisor tang. >> thank you. what is the time line again on this project? >> we're hoping to bring to planning exhibition, for the haight in the summer. we'll start construction shortly there after. >> construction starting within this year you think? >> yes. >> i know that was in the budget analyst report, maybe for the record, i know the purchase price is $1.8 million. there are a couple of appraisals done both by the school district and i think our real estate division. wondering if you can speak to that? >> i can speak to that. the $1.8 million is the
mid-point between the two appraisals that were commissioned. one was in 2009 and one was in 2013. there was some time in between there. >> okay. it look like -- i had just wanted to make sure it was in the record. it looks like the appraisal done in 2009 was for about $1.6 million and then the one in 2013 was about $2.1 million. >> that's correct. >> supervisor kim. >> just to follow up. was it based on what we will be building on that site? was it kind of the market rate value of the land? i know this is a big conversation with sfusd -- >> when we were in negotiating with the school district, we really looking at the high and best use. we're trying to like for like in terms of their parcels.
the highest and best use at that time. clearly, the appraisals are orlandolder from 2009 to 2013. the values of land probably exceeds that amount at this time. that's why it was very important that we option the parcel at the time we purchased 1950 mission. but basically, both of those appraisals were -- the initial appraisals were done by the school district and done at the highest and best use. >> so the assumption for the value of the land is assuming we build 100% market rate at the site? >> that is correct. >> when did we decide to do that? sometimes when you negotiate with property owners, you say if
we're building 100% affordable that should be how he based the value of the atlanta. when did we decide to do that and decided to pay full mar -- market value? >> in the case of school district, they were looking at the sort of the option of selling it to market rate developers to fund their operations. >> to their facilities -- >> any proceeds from the sale of the property would go back into their capital funding so they can do improvements, balance of their facilities. they're under i obligations to do it at the highest and best use. part of it is also, when we acquire a particular piece of property, we will look at the property and lot of it depends on whether there's a competition
for those parcels or not. often when there's a competition like 490 south, we'll have to pay what the market will bare. there are actually competing proposals. we will look to increase the value that we get out of a particular site. in this case, we both the parcel was not currently done -- zoned for housing. far -- fair market value at that time was far. we're increasing that value by going through the environmental review process and creating the entitlement. we also look at the question of whether we can create more density while on a particular site and do more housing than what was previously entitled for. it's really a question of are there competing offers for a
particular site? is a situation where it's just a question of doing appraisals and we trying to come to a win-win. >> i understand. i was curious about the process. i'm not trying to shortchange the school district. sense i came from there. i was curious, kind of how the thinking is around land purchase. i appreciate that. i know this has been in for years. i was on the school board. i'm glad we'll be able to utilize it to build affordable house. >> okay. seeing no other questions. mr. rose, go to your report please. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, initially i want to state on page two of our report, i want to correct our report for the record. that under the background section in that the purchase price of $1,800,000 includes the
$450,000 payment made by the city. the san francisco unified school district under the separate option agreement between the city and san francisco unified school district. that is contrary to the information that was first provided to us. so that the total purchase price is $1,800,000 that includes $450,000. on page three of our report, as you know, the board of supervisors previously appropriated 1 million atmosphere hundred thousand dollars -- $1,000,800,000,000. to purchase the 1101 connecticut street property. we do recommend that you approve this resolution. >> any questions? we will open up to public comment. anybody wishes to comment on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues any further discussion. is there a motion? >> through the chair that i make a motion to forward out item two with call to recommendation to
the fal -- full board. >> we can take that without objection. madam go to item three. >> is an ordinance authorizing the sub ordinary nation of program loan to a new loan to health right 360 and clinic located at 1563 mission street. >> thank you. i believe we have both dph and mayor's office of housing. >> good morning members of the committee, my name is don. i'm a senior project manager. the mayor's housing of community development. i want to give a brief background as to this request and be followed by staff from dph. most in the department of public health request the loans in part by two properties by health
right 360 to a new loan from the nonprofit finance fund in the amount of $8.5 million from the construction of hr360. new headquarters and clinic building located mission street. in 2005 and 2007, the city made two loans respectively to hr360 for size i can upgrades for one -- seismic upgrades. at the time the loans were made, the value of the property did not meet the requirement contained within the seismic and safety loan program ordinance. the city required 890 hayes and 214 haight street as security.
hayes and haight street properties are no longer required in the security of their these loans. section 66a.7 of the anonymous authorizes -- ordinance authorizes the city to the loans. providing financing for the rehabilitation of the property if the underwriting is met. in this case, the conditions of the section are not met because learned requesting sub ordinary nation is not providing financing for the rehabilitation of the property that benefited from are or secured by the seismic safety loan. these -- those properties, 890 hayes and haight street receive no benefit from the new construction loans. if not approved, completion of hr360 new headquarters and clinic may not be feasible.
hr360 will be required to rent office space and clinic spaces in san francisco's current high cost market. this resolution assist hr360 securing stable headquarters in san francisco and ensuring that 20,000 low income san franciscans continue to have access. also -- we're available for questions after the dph staff make their presentation. >> good morning supervisors. i'm colleen chaplain the deputy. from the health represent, the resolution before you is important. dph contracts with health right.
they serve approximately gets thousand san franciscans every year. as you know, healthright 360 is the nonprofit organization with the merger of two other long time san francisco nonprofit. since then hr360 has expanded. they currently operate for primary care medical clinics, health treatment program, four outpatient day centers and two gender response to jail program. in addition to san francisco, hr360 currently prates in eight california counties. they purchased its new headquarterses building at to do two things. to replace the services that it
provides at its rented location and to ensure its continued ability to serve san franciscans without fear of displacement or eviction. this is made possible in part by california's implementation of the affordable care act. which result in more san franciscans being covered by health insurance. hr360 serves predominantly low income population. in addition all of hr360 subsidy services is under drug program.
dph already made two key agreements with hr360 to support this board's action should it approve this resolution. these are in the the areas of monitoring of oversight and on sight presence. dph director and our cfo will hold quarterly meetings with hr360 to review quality assurance measure. that will ensure they remain in good standing with the city. should uncover any areas of concern, we have a corrective action process that we will initiate to ensure any concerns are remedied. form of corrective action plan are developed in coordination with the staff at dph and monitored by our health commission. we have an agreement with hr360
to lease 2000 square feet on site at their new mission facility. we have an initial team of five years plus an option to extend and also a first right to purchase the property. this leads to arrangement, allow dph to have on sight presence in greater involvement in their success. we have not made a determination what we will house there, we plan to be an active member of their community. director garcia is here to answer any questions. inknow healthright hr360 director is here today. >> just real quick, supervisor tang have some questions. we fund out of our -- i know they do an amazing job in our neighborhood and is needed. we fund their operations. we're now giving them loans and
renting backspace from them from loans that were given on their buildings? >> yes, it would be the fair market rent. asking about the rental loan back. >> from a city perspective, what are we getting back? aside from clinic not shutting down? it's part of a broader conversation here i have on this. i don't want to dominate this. supervisor tang has a question. >> good morning. barbara garcia director of health. part of the issue that i see in this ability to support hr360 to purchase this building is to stabilize their services. i was brought into this after the mayor's office recognized that in order to subordinary nature this issue, it does cause a concern for the city to do that. our concern is that if we do not this as an example, lion martin
will probably lose their ability to be where they are. that leaves us up pretty soon. they're willingness to build this building -- there was a concern from the mayor's office of housing to ensure stability and financial stability. so the first process we thought, let us get in there to have a footprint to ensure anything went south we would be present in the building. we also ensure -- i've been managing hr360 in my career for over 15 years. i was part of the merger between the two entities originally. i've watched this organization grow and we've been pretty tight about really watching the way that its grown financially. i've had commitments from both executive and we'll be meeting with the board of supervisors. what we get out of this is the stability of hr360, which is the largest behavior and substance abuse mental health program in
the city. >> i totally agree. i know value it is. i'm worried about what's happened here and the potential for something like this to happen again from the city perspective. where we're lending to an organization that we fund out of our city budget. when they get into trouble financially, we continue to been the hook. the recourse is, if you don't do this, we're shutting this down. if this loan won't be enough, some circumstance, another $8.5 million, you got to subordinate again. i'm supporting the budget and i will continue to do so. now we're a lessee from them. our involvement seems so
intertwined. i was asking our budget analyst, it seems too big to fail organization in the city. i guess i'm wondering how we got here but also how do we make sure this doesn't happen going forward? >> i totally agree with you. i was brought in this process. i'm here to support the fact that hr360 is a very important organization. the process already been brokered. the loans already been done. i was asked to see if i can support mayor's office of housing in this process. we do know that it's different kind of situation and we are at the end of the day, the department of public health will have to continue to provide these services whether it's hr360 or several other entities. i can tell you that it would be very difficult for us today, to try to replace what hr360 is doing very quickly. it would take us i think at least over two years to try to replace them because of the number of providers and you can
see the extent of their services. we're happy to take these out. we were just trying to do as a form to really show not only that we would support them by financially helping with their lease by having a 2000 square footprint in the building. that was one of the ways we felt we could secure their financial stability. but as the money that we're providing, $45 million, they're changing financial situation is very different today. because of the aca and their increased revenue. that was one of the greatest concerns that i also had was can they financially afford this loan. i'm much more confident of that today because of the fact that they're going to be getting several different funding sources from the state and federal government. i probably wouldn't be supporting this if that wasn't the case today. >> i appreciate those comments. i completely agree. we can't suffer any lapse of
services. they do a great job. no problem. this is around the financial conundrum we're in. whether it's providing these type of services or anything else that might contract for us for the city of san francisco. it's kind of piecemeal approach. we support them out of our annual budget, loan, subordinate loans. you keep picking on someone, you continue to put money so you don't have a picture what was up front. that's my concern on this. we can't jeopardize any of that. i fully agree with that. question of how did we get here and how do we learn from it. >> supervisors, one other thing that we learned in this process some of the original loan on these two properties date back to the early '90s.
sort of the restrictions or the terms of those, they're very different than the terms on our current loans. the question of -- it's not clear on the question of subordinate financing on the process, etcetera. one of the things that we did through this process is one to be beef up our asset management requirement and the existing loans to make sure that the assets we're now subordinating will be funding and maintained in a proper way. then the other requirements to make it very clear, that these assets. those affordable housing assets are not to be used to as collateral for related loans because affordable housing is precious to the city. it's on the mayor's office to go back and take another look at
our portfolio in terms of our older borrowers to make sure they're aware. we continue to be good managers of the portfolio over all. we came late in this process also when the work will be done on their headquarter building. again, this is very unusual request and that's why it's here before the board because it does violate the ordinance and it requires the board to resolve to allow us to do the suborde--
we support this. >> one of the things we learnedded is to be working closer together on these issues. that's an example. for every one of the programs in dph who have these type of loans, make sure they understand with the mayor's office, what this means when we provide them these kinds of funding and why these leans are so important. i think that's an important learning lesson for us. also win i work -- when i worked with the healthright 360 they need to understand that we need to be brought in sooner for these processes to get them the support and their understanding as to why the processes and the loans that we provide and the leans that we have on these to protect these kinds of facilities that are so important for us. i do want to say that hr360 is not just in san francisco.
it is in eight other counties. they're a very large organization. that's probably one of the other reasons -- as you know supervisors worked very hard on ensuring that nonprofits in san francisco become more diverse in their funding. many of them are 100% depend end on us. when we talk about how well we work with them, they're an extension of our role. hr360 is a bit different. they're doing really good fundraising outside of their general fund. they're also in eight other counties seeking other resources to diversify their funding. they're all dependent on the city as a whole. they are a very big provider for us but i think there were several lessons that we learned between two departments to ensure that we provide greater over sight around the liens and loans that many of the nonprofits have. it's a good lesson for us to
learn and we need to be more vigilant about it. >> my comments -- i completely agree with everything you said about the organization and their value to our city. we need the services and so forth. it's more about the financial aspect. how did we get here? are we lending and supporting organizations that become too big to fail. they can keep coming ban for more and more and we say we have to keep funding them for more and subordination is more out of the annual budget. that becomes a challenge. that can lead us on a slippery slope. that's i want to question whether this organization or any other one. but thank you. supervisor tang. >> thank you. thanks for your question forever fai -- supervisor farrell. i wanted to go back to the basic question of how we got here. i don't know if that's a question that your department want to answer or healthright
360. just to dig deeper as to why we're faced with this decision in the first place. >> i'll let my colleague respond to this, i was asked to come in. first of all i think hr360 did good diligence trying to find those. what they didn't understand they couldn't take the full assets of their assets. they couldn't take full credit of their assets because they have liens. they thought that would be an easy thing to do to ask the city to subordinate those. i was asked to come in by the director to help. he knew how important these services were. we strategized about what would happen if we didn't do it. what would happen if the building did not get purchased because of this process. we were kind of left with how do we go forward with this considering the ramifications. that's the role that i came into
in trying to support the organization. really understanding the situation that it puts the mayor's office on. i'll let my colleague describe his participation in that. >> we were approached early on. i think the development of the mission street project by lenders representing healthright 360. they requested subordination of the asset. this initial lender, we said no. we're not going to do it because it's not related to the two particular buildings. we were later approached by a subsequent lender to fill a gap for the mission street project. we said, well, why don't you go to a nonprofit lender who will
understand why we can't subordinate to these assets. it actually worked out to the benefit of healthright 360. they were to access to market tax credits which filled the gap for their development on mission street. but they still needed the issue of security on that loan. they came back and said, we can't close our loans along with the new market tax credits unless the city does something to subordinate to allow us to lien those two additional properties. we were sort of caught after the fact since the project had been already initiated. to avoid the financial
difficulties of stopping construction and also because we are not healthcare lenders. we're affordable housing lenders and trying to underwrite a healthcare organization was confront sort of our -- beyond our expertise. we were also brought into this sort of after the fact. i think the common misconception for healthright 360 is these were their properties and not the city's properties. these are not their properties or the city's properties. they're collectively the city's property that we share and we hold as stewards for their use, for the city of san francisco.
for their lenders, they didn't really care. they were just pieces of property in san francisco that had incredible value from the time we purchased them in 1990 and they would secure their lo loan. their lenders beyond their current nonprofit lenders didn't understand what it means to secure affordable housing site for another purpose. i think that is the service part of the organization, some would say equally or more important than the residential treatment. some would say. it's the fact that they're treating that as their own personal property as they're holding it for future generations of san franciscans. that's the thing that we have to sort of make our borrowers realize that it's not just theirs. they're just the temporary
stewards. >> i appreciate the department's responses. i would love to hear from hr360. i believe they're here today. just to get their perspective as to how this all came about. >> thank you so much. i want to thank both mayor's office of housing and dph for supporting. this is a complicated project. i probably can give you -- i will try to give you how this project came about. healthright 360 currently hones number of facilities in the city and stewards. we rent a bunch of properties and facing the same challenges that every other nonprofit faces in san francisco. we began to look forward and think about how do we replace those properties. we have long term leases which are ending january 2017. for about $38,000, it was about 40,000 square feet of clinic space. outpatient behavorial health, mental health services,
residential treatment, primary care clinics. we have 40,000 square feet and a lease that ends in january 2017. i have to replace that space. we knew this was coming. we started thinking, what would really ineensure our long term future. would be to purchase something. purchase a property that we can move in and essentially convert what we'll be paying for rent, paying debt. that's exactly what we did. amazingly we found a space at the rock away. it's in are the same community. we serve the people who live on division street. we're in the going to lose them. we'll be able to continue to do that. we're just converting what the risk of rent into debt. we looked at what the comparable cost were for replacing the rent. our debt service is clear. they're lower than the cost. i want to make clear, we are not asking for any loans from the
city for this. this project is 100% financed. it's financed with very complicated group of lenders. bank of america is the only commercial lender, rest of lenders are nonprofit financial institutions many whom specializes in healthcare. they really tested six lenders came in together to create lending package for this project. they tested and probed absolutely everything about -- they tested all our assumptions. they looked at financials and challenged us. we had to prove we can make that service. we can make good on those debts in the long term. these are not -- this is not like countrywide financial with subprime lenders who want to get the deal. these are people who are invested in community health and they're nonprofit lenders. they agreed to give us a loan. there was a misunderstanding that we thought considering there's $8 million of debt on
$38 million worth of property. we did not realize that complexity of the subordination of the seismic safety loan. that conversation is what led to the new market tax credits, which we didn't know anything about. we never developed a project like this. it sent us in if the direction to get the new market tax credit which brings $13 million back to us off the cost of the property. we are not taking any loans from the city for this. all we're asking is a subordinate position for a period of time. the debt services cheaper than rant would be. we faced this challenge even if we didn't have this. we'll be having a different conversation. the debt services, it absolutely -- we're acting as stewards of the services that we provide in san francisco. we made a decision to do that. i'd be happy to answer any questions. some ocomply -- those
residential facilities are seen as housing facilities. they are healthcare facilities. it's a bordel model -- model that dph understands. our residential programs that are funded in part as affordable housing have always been resident through healthcare facilities. they've been residential treatment facilities. >> given that then, i know the budget analyst report had said that, i guess mohcd staff is not able to verify whether you're able to repay the $8.5 million loan or refinance the balance of it after seven years. can you peek to that -- speak to that? >> again, we have every reason to believe that we can repay that loan cash and operation and through the growth in our business that comes about
through the affordable care act. which completely changed how we're able to stabilize. we never had more stable funding in subsidies than we have today. san francisco is a very generous county invested in a lot of dollars. now that is a federal entitlements. those moneys are being replaced by federal dollars that aren't going to go away. business model is more stable. we operate in eight different counties there is an insufficient capacity for treatment in system o -- some of those counties. those counties are all doing anales of do they have the capacity and are coming to organizations like us looking for expansion. when we project an expansion in our business, that is very real. that's a very real possibility. it's a probability because again, there's many counties that have insufficient capacity because they didn't invest the
general fund dollars in building an infrastructure for residential treatment. now it's a federal benefit, they need it, they don't have it. it's not -- it's a conservative estimate growth for our business. other thing that happened for healthright 360, we've grown through mergers. we have probably completed on average about one merger per year. we projected that to continue. it is one thing if you're grant funded or if you're county funded. medicaid has a whole different standard of challenge. we were always approached by other organizations that believe that as long as they can continue to preserve great services that they have and be responsive to the communities that they serve, they look to us for support through merger. we've done at least one a year
since 2011. >> okay, thank you. again, none of these questions take away from how we all feel programmatically. >> supervisor kim. >> i appreciate you being here. i think with healthright 360 provides to the city is invaluable. representing the district. i'm very excited because that building had long been vacant. it's an incredible eyesore for the neighborhood. in having that space will be incredibly important. it's amazing that it will be dedicated to most vulnerable residents that need these health services. it's clear what the purpose this is. just to help address some of the questions, i believe that with the business model, it's very likely that you'll be able to repay these loans.
can we talk about what will happen if for any healthright 360 is not able to pay back the $8.5 million, what would occur then? >> since they are superior position on our property on the collective property, it would depend on what the action of the particular lender would be, whether the learned would recast the loans. if they were to call the loans due, we would be faced with the option of carrying the default to preserve the property. which is the value what this subordinate note, which is approximately $8.5 million across the two properties. we will be faced with that option. >> when you say we, do you mean the city or healthright 360? >> obviously we would look to
healthright 360 first to see if they have the resources to make the payment. if they didn't have to make the payment, we would look at the question of whether preserving those housing assets was important and we had the resources to direct the $8.5 million to reserve those assets. clearly -- >> with the city funds? >> yes. whether it's from housing trust fund or from the affordable housing bond. it would be how affordable housing money will carry the default if healthright 360 did not have the resources from other accounts. >> has that happened in recent history where we had to do that? >> not in recent history. i think that -- part of this, it's a hybrid model of the residential care. it's not affordable housing with
rents. there's no tax credit investor and the transaction. the stream of income is really related to the service contracts as it relates to it. it's a unique situation. we have not been in a situation where we had to basically bail out owners of buildings. we work very hard to make sure that buildings are underwritten properly. we are now in a model where we own the land underneath all the buildings as a public land trust. that gives us great leverage in any sort of default by owners. again, this is a loan that was probably closed in 1990 or 1991. we did the seismic safety loan.
some of the current writing and structuring is not contemporary. this is something that we would address through basically negotiation with the subordinate learnedder. in this case it is nonprofit. hopefully we can come to some reasonable agreement with the nonprofit. i think the great hope overall is that the projections are correct and that they can make the debt service payment. by the time they are finished with their new market tax credit compliance period, they can refinance on different properties. these properties will no longer have that debt on them. the city would look to preserve its affordable assets. >> supervisor kim, one of the things that we are trying to do is be proactive in over sight. long before i know they're not
going to make the note, we will be doing corrective action with them. that's why they're going to be required for the next seven years to provide quarterly reports and quarterly meetings with the department to ensure they're watching their financial status. i had experience on closing on properties of the city. we do know how to do that. the issue here is that we would be responsible for that. i would take great responsibility for to ensure that these services continue and we have had those kinds of changes in the past with closures and nonprofits. with this organization, i think it's really important that we continue this ongoing over sight to ensure we're comfortable about their financial status. and their ability to pay back the loan. that's the commitment that the department of public health makes. we know how important this organization is. >> my last question, i i might have missed this in all the reading. i'm not familiar with the
nonprofit finance fund. is there some type of agreement within the fund that building remain a nonprofit site or a public purpose site for a number of years in exchange for being eligible for loans? one of my long term concerns is, as mr. lee had mentioned, which is that we're able to keep in property for public use in the long term. i think a couple of years ago, when we're faced with a nonprofit displacement issue and the heated commercial real estate market. many of us thought about we wished we could have bought up a lot of property. the city ends up paying those rental increases if they're contractors with the city in order to keep the services going. we want to make sure this property stays in public hands even if it's not specifically in the city. there's some several of
assurance. >> i don't think that is in the loan agreement. i do think if you would ask -- the nonprofit finance fund is made quite clear, they would never want to default on the property anyway. they are a nonprofit finance fund. they're in the business of supporting nonprofit institutions be it healthcare and social services. my since is, that is what their desire would be to do. i do not believe that it's written into the loan agreement if you will. >> okay. i think that's maybe just a long term discussion. maybe not this case. i love to see as we further support nonprofit in ownership and capital that we think about some level of assurance in terms of longevity of sites staying within site control of the community or of the city. i know this is an issue that came of recently city of refuge that did a loan and ended up
selling. it was such a short commitment to remain a nonprofit. while i support nonprofits in making money in the market that we're in now, it was also sad to lose such a big site that was a community facility as well. >> thank you. >> okay, mr. rose. let's go to your report please. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 9 of our report it's showing in table two, over the seven-year term, healthright 360 the term of this $8.5 million loan from the nonprofit finance corporation healthright 360 will be required to pay a total of $6,267,112. at the end of the term, they would have to repay 3,000,683 of
the total $8.5 million loan. that leaves remaining balance. therefore healthright 360 would need to pay off the balance at the end of the seven year term. based on documents provided by healthright 360 reviewed by dph, healthright 360 considers the nonprofit finance fund loan to be a construction bridge loan which will be primarily repaid with funds from a healthright $36,015,000,000 capital fundraising campaign. healthright 360 will use operating funds to pay back its $24 million bank of america loan and the subject $8,500,000 loan. however, we note there are no guarantees that such fundraising efforts will be successful or surplus operating funds will be
available. further, mohcd staff were not able to hr360 operating expenses as supervisor tang pointed out, mohcd could not determine whether healthright 360 will be able to repay the $8.5 million loan or refinance $4 million of this loan. on page 11 of our report as supervisor farrell pointed out on january 7, 2016, healthright 360 signed a letter of intent to lease approximately 2000 square feet of space for initial term of five years plus one three year option to extend based on independent appraisal of fair market rent. we considered approval for the
board of supervisors. >> so, can't validate the projections. can you talk about that and the ability to repay the loan? >> our expertise is in real estate residential real estate and nonhealthcare financing. we didn't have the expertise to evaluate the operations of healthright 360 in terms of their projections and expenses. the mayor's office did not have
the expertise to evaluate the financial statement. >> i want to emphasize that heth -- healthright is stating that the primary source to repay back the loan is a $15 million fundraising campaign. obviously there are no guarantees on getting $15 million in fundraising unless they come up with something a says there is a guarantee. >> we got five. it's now ten more. we have $5 million down on the capital campaign. no lender would have loaned to us if it was on a promise of a $15 million capital campaign. there's actually a seven plan access. we do have lien on the property and they also had to sign of -- off on this. no lender would have made those loans to us on the hope of a $15 million capital. we had to be able to show that
we could meet debt service even if we didn't raise $1. when they vetted us, these are not people that were in the business of making money for share hold, they do this to support healthcare facilities. they wanted to ploy them carefully. they deeply understood our business, which is a healthcare business. they would have not done that had they not been assured if they didn't raise a dollar. likely it will raise at least another dollar. they would not have made those loans us to. they had to fight to get them. they have to get them from the federal government. they would not have done that if they were not completely comfortable that we would be able to make debt service. we may have to refinance in the future. we may not if -- if i don't raise $4 million, that i have to refinance, then we'll have a conversation with refinancing
the value of the property as built maybe sufficient. hopefully it will be sufficient to carry the full debt. there's so many things that may happen between now and the next seven years. what i do know is that without it, we still face -- we are not in a position of worrying about rent mitigation. nonprofit displacement. we'll be here and we'll have the ability that we'll be able to stay in that facility. >> the capital campaign that you're doing now, that is to pay down this loan? >> in a perfect world, we'd have that money now and we wouldn't be subordinating. that's option one. >> here's my question from a city perspective. you're not going to raise the next $5 million and use it for somebody else? >> no. >> this capital is dedicated to pay down the loan on this
building? >> 98% of our funding is through government dollars. whether it's city contracts. we have medical clinics, medicaid payments. any funds raised goes to the building. >> okay, thank you. >> barbara garcia, i would be more than happy to go over the board to get that resolution around their funding, their capital campaign for the purpose that you talked about and i'm happy to do that. i will be meeting with the board shortly to discuss this whole process. i'm happy to have them resolve that. >> i want to make one point of clarification, i want to be clear, if we were to get a loaner who gives restricted dollar, it has to go to lion martin health service. outside of nonrestricted fundraising efforts are 100% for the building. >> i think that would go a long
way. okay. i appreciate it. colleagues i don't know if you have questions. mr. rose, thank you for your announcement and talking through this. all of us had clearly this has nothing to do with the organization and mission and what you do and how value they are to the city. i appreciate everything you do. i do think from a city perspective, we are in a very strained situation that i don't want to be in again financially. mr. rosen, i'll submit a formal request for your office to look at legislative options to make sure we don't get in this bind again. this is not a reflection. please, i hope you hear that collectively. i don't want to be in this position again as a city. i imagine this board is going to support this. i don't know that others ones would.
i'll submit that to you separately. any further questions? thank you very much. we'll open up to public comment. anybody wishes to comment on item three? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues. >> through the chair that i make a motion to send forward this resolution with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> we have a motion by supervisor tang. item four please. >> is a resolution to and acquisition of one construction easement to permanent service access easements and one person easement for water utility purposes for john daly boulevard associates monarch ventures and wilbak investment for approximately $78,000 for the water improvement program. >> good morning chairman fai farrell. i'm here today to seeking your
approval for purchase and sale agreement to four easements required of the regional ground water storage recovery project. claudia, assistant director of real estate and city and county of san francisco is here today. the ground water project will consist of 16 ground water wells for use during dry weather years. in normal years, the wells will be allowed to naturally recharge and supply more water to wholesale customers in the peninsula. it will connect to the city daly city and the california water service company. this is the last major project in our water system improvement program. the project requires two access's eastment, a contemporary construction easement to apartment complex that is owned by a joint venture of john daly l.p., monarch
ventures l.p. and wilbak investments l.p. i will be hame happy to -- i will be happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? mr. rosen, go to your report. >> yes, mr. chairman. on page 14 of our report, four easements were appraised to have a value of 38,185. because of construction will be disruptive to the joint partnership tenants apartments. with the apartment complex. based on negotiations with paying additional $40,000 to the appraised value, there -- total cost of those easements the details are shown in table one on page 15 of our report. we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> any questions?
public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item four. seeing none. public comment is closed. i have a motion. >> i move to send forward item four to the full board for recommendationu recommendations. >> is a resolution authorizing the general manager of the to execute amendment number three to agreement number cs-1918 to continue providing construction management services for the construction and close out increasing agreement by $1 million for a total agreement amount not to exceed $20.5 million. >> good morning chairperson farrell supervisors tang and kim. i'm the director of water and improvement program. if we go to the slides please. this is an amendment for construction management services
with a consultant named hatch motte macdonald to continue their work on a irvington tunnel project. agreement cs more 1918 is -- c s-918. this project saw a failure of liner during construction. this was due to some subpar construction of the grouting and the space between the steel liner and the rock and the tunnel. we required an investigation of the full length of the tunnel. it required the project schedule to be extended. the contractors made all of those repairs. we do need additional construction management services to provide additional inspection staff to provide quality assurance of the repair work which included a lot of extra hours and overtime then continue for the final construction change order negotiations and
close out of the project. just a couple of photos. these are the buckles in the liner that were discovered last fall. we're able to repair those. we regrouted the entire length of the 3.5 miles of tunnel. the tunnel is now in service and serving water to 2.6 million people in the bay area. this is the capping of the tunnel at the portal. the restoration of the portals are shown here. request to action is to approve this resolution to execute this amendment with hatch motte macdonald to increase amount to $1 million and total amount not to exceed $20.5 million. it will allow the project to be closed out. >> thank you very much. any questions? mr. rosen, go to your report.
>> mr. chairman. table one on page 18 of our report shows the budget and remain scope of work for the increase amount of $1 million to this hatch motte macdonald contract. on page 18, we note that the revised budget for the new irvington tunnel project is $348 million. that's shown in table two on page 19 of our report. this budget includes the construction management services contract at a total cost of $20,000,500. i would note on page 19 supervisors that the new irvington tunnel project budget has increased by $132 million or 61-point% of the original 2005 budgets for the revised budget economy just noted $347 million we recommend that you approve the resolution. >> thank you mr. rose. any questions for our budget
analyst. anybody wish to comment. seeing none. comment is closed. >> make a motion to send out item five to the full board. >> motioned by supervisor tang. call item six. >> resolution approving the contract amendment with the children's council of san francisco to manage preschool of all programs subsidy to children of the city increasing not to exceed approximately $74 million for the period of july 12012 to june 30, 2016. >> good morning supervisors. in. we bring to you an amendment, which is amendment number six to children's council. this is to basically pay for preschool. the city has at the preschool initiative which is now in its
11th year. we are reaching 4300 children by the end of this school year. the majority of them are 4-year-olds. a big group of them are also 3s. these kids will be getting two years worth of preschool. which is an amazing thing. this has been an initiative that was reauthorized by the voters. prop c back in 2014. this is just continue the services that kids are getting. more than that, it's also to build the quality of these preschools. because of that, we've been recognized by the state of california to -- we're getting $5 million worth of grants through the state of california to continue to support these preschools. >> great, thank you very much. colleagues any questions or comments? supervisor tang. >> one quick question, the budget analyst recommended reducing the amount by about
$1.4 million. want fog see if that's something the department is amendable to? >> well, not really. i don't know want to breed on this resolution at this point. it's taken several months to get here. we need to reimburse over 150 preschools in are participating in this initiative. the reason i don't agree with it, because we're just going to be here in a couple of months requesting amendment number seven. if that is the case, that is the case in order to move this resolution forward. >> sorry, just one follow up question. can you talk about why you need the additional 1.5 that the budget analyst asked to reduce? >> in our previous resolution, which was amendment number five to children's council, we did not spend the full amount that was in that resolution. part of that was for a number of
complicated reasons, one of it being that when prop c passed, it also remained in the legislation the administration of these funds to the newly created mayor's office of early care and education. during that sort of transfer, first five agreed to one more year of managing the universal preschool initiative on behalf of the city to give the office of ece some time to build capacity. we did not fully extend amendment number five. this fiscal year, we've received additional funds from the state of california. in order to fully extend that amount, we need the full grant. we need to spend the full grant. authorize it's use it or lose it type of deal with the state of california. what the analyst recommendation is that because we didn't fully
spend our prior year grant agreement, that amount, we still have authority to spend up to $27 million within that grant period. i get it. it's sort of a technical adjustment. for us, it really is that we need to spend this money and we have a plan to spend the money through the preschools that are participating in this initiative. >> thank you. mr. rose wanted to respond. >> madam, mr. chairman and members of the committee. supervisor tang, first of all, as a supervisors know, we always submit a draft copy of our report to the department for their review. in this specific case, after they reviewed our report, where we had a larger reduction, they gave us corrected information, which we revised the report, which they agreed with. we lowered